Politics

JUST IN: Anti-Trump Judge Forced To Back Down After SCOTUS Ruling

Published

3 weeks ago

April 8, 2025

A federal judge who initially blocked President Donald Trump’s deportation crackdown has backed off—just one day after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of reviving the use of a an old wartime law to remove migrants linked to criminal networks.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, appointed by former President Obama, abruptly canceled a hearing scheduled for Tuesday that would have considered extending his block on deportations of Venezuelan nationals with gang ties. The about-face came after the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling late Monday allowing the administration to resume removals under the Alien Enemies Act, a statute dating back to 1798.

Trump’s legal team has argued that Tren de Aragua—a violent transnational gang tied to drug trafficking and extortion—qualifies as a national security threat, justifying use of the law. The administration has labeled the gang a “hybrid criminal state” and reported its members are infiltrating the U.S. under the guise of asylum seekers.

Boasberg previously halted two deportation flights in March that were set to expel over 200 Venezuelans, citing the government’s failure to provide legal notice and due process. He also warned the administration that it could face contempt proceedings after at least three deportation flights went forward despite his order.

Those threats still loom, though Boasberg’s recent actions suggest the legal momentum has shifted. The Alien Enemies Act has only been used a handful of times in U.S. history—during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

Chief Judge James E. Boasberg

Trump’s move to revive the law is being watched closely, especially as the border crisis continues to dominate headlines and election-year priorities.

The Supreme Court’s ruling lifted Boasberg’s temporary restraining order but added an important caveat: deportations can continue, but detainees must be allowed to challenge their removal in court. In a move that significantly undercut the ACLU’s case, the Court said those legal challenges must be filed in jurisdictions where the migrants are being held—such as Texas—not in Washington, D.C., where the ACLU filed its lawsuit.

That detail effectively gutted the D.C.-based case, forcing Boasberg to cancel the hearing and give the plaintiffs until April 16 to propose a new course of action. Still, he has not ruled out pursuing contempt charges related to the initial deportations that took place in defiance of his earlier block.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s own appointees, joined the Court’s liberal bloc in dissent. In a blistering opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and co-signed by Barrett, the dissent warned the administration’s approach “poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law.”

Barrett’s decision triggered a wave of backlash from conservatives, many of whom once celebrated her confirmation.

Barrett’s role in the decision has reignited debate over judicial loyalty, especially when it comes to judges appointed by Republican presidents. Some critics noted that all the female justices, including Barrett, opposed the administration’s deportation strategy, while all the male justices voted to uphold it.

Meanwhile, the ACLU has pivoted, filing habeas petitions in states like New York in an effort to continue the fight. They argue the administration’s use of an 18th-century wartime law to deport modern-day migrants is an unconstitutional overreach that violates basic rights.

Trump, for his part, wasted no time blasting Boasberg as an “activist judge” and even called for his impeachment. With deportations underway, the courtroom battle is far from over—but the legal ground has shifted, and Trump’s team is now in the driver’s seat.